Sunday, February 26, 2012

David Cameron and Holy Communion

This is a guest post by the Rev'd Julian Mann:

The Prime Minister’s legislative intention to interfere with the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage has serious spiritual implications for him as a communicant Anglican.

God's Word written (as Article XX of the XXXIX describes the Bible) sets forth the creation of marriage by the Lord God Almighty in the book of Genesis. In two of the Synoptic Gospels, God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, publicly defends the created institution of marriage before large crowds in Galilee in argument against powerful vested interests (see Matthew 19v1-12 and Mark 10v1-12).

Word and Sacrament go together in Anglican theology, a nexus faithfully reflected in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, which, according to Canon A5, is a liturgical repository of sound biblical truth. The BCP is an integrated liturgy, which means both its Holy Communion service and its marriage service have important bearing on the question of Mr Cameron’s continuing admittance to the Lord’s Table.

The BCP’S Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion warns Communicants against taking the sacrament ‘unworthily’. Worthiness is defined by Holy Scripture, because the exhortation prior to the administration of the Lord's Supper refers to the apostolic authority of St Paul.

Reflecting the same attitude to the authority of the Bible, the BCP’s Form of Solemnization of Matrimony is crystal clear that marriage is betwixt a man and a woman and that sexual relations outside of the God-created institution of heterosexual, monogamous, life-long marriage constitute ‘fornication’.

So Mr Cameron’s public action in pushing for the legal redefinition of marriage is very serious from an historic Anglican perspective.

Canon B16 - ‘Of notorious offenders not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ – declares that: ‘If a minister be persuaded that anyone of his cure who presents himself to be a partaker of the Holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the bishop of the diocese or other Ordinary of the place and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the sacrament to any until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table.’

The diocesan bishop is ultimately responsible for Holy Communion discipline. The minister of the church where Mr Cameron takes Christ’s sacrament urgently needs to confer with his or her Ordinary as to whether the Prime Minister’s move to redefine God’s created institution of man-woman marriage constitutes ‘grave and open sin without repentance’.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire – www.oughtibridgechurch.org.uk

136 Comments:

Anonymous Cleethorpes Rock said...

Your Grace, Mr Cameron is not proposing to change the Church definition of marriage. He has been married in church himself and has made his own personal pledge to the institution.

What is being proposed here is a change in the Civil Law to allow same-sex couples to enter into a public contract with one another and with the state. Christian marriage will remain between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Two gay people being able to go down the town hall and have a party afterwards doesn't change that.

26 February 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This has echoes of Cormac Murphy O'Connor trying to nobble Catholic cabinet ministers. It may also come up in future for Muslim cabinet ministers following a fatwa. Perhaps we need to be more careful choosing our MPs if some of them have religious puppet masters in the background.

26 February 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger Michael said...

Is it possible that the Church of England's status as the established church complicates this somewhat? Surely it isn't just a matter of such a neat division between church and state as Mr Rock suggests.

26 February 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yes, Cleethorpes Rock, well said. The proposal is to change civil marriage, of which religious marriage in the Church of England is a superset.

26 February 2012 at 11:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, did I read this right?
An Anglican vicar is complaining about a proposed change to the definition of marriage?

An ANGLICAN vicar?

A ember of the CoE which exists SOLELY because Henry VIII wanted a new church to redefine marriage.

Seems that the vicar's bigotry is blinding him to his irony...

26 February 2012 at 11:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Cleethorpes Rock.

It is nothing to do with the churches.

They are just being bigots.

26 February 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger graham wood said...

Cleethorpes Rock said:
"Your Grace, Mr Cameron is not proposing to change the Church definition of marriage."

The plain fact is that he is seeking to change the well understood concept of marriage, whether it is called a "Church definition" or not. That concept is limited to a monogamous, heterosexual union of one man and woman for life.
He intends to change that definition, and the word "marriage" would then be extended to a variety of other claimants - in the first instance same sex homosexuals, but then other groups with a variety of definitions such as bigamists, bisexuals, polygamists and etc. That would be to degrade and cheapen the institution itself by that extension.
At present such groups cannot legally lay claim to an arrangement called marriage by the rest of society, but a change in the law would open the possibility of these demanding in the courts equal recognition of their "unions".
To say then that the proposed change in the law is not really a "change" at all, but merely the opportunity for "gay men to have a party" is too absurd to waste time and debate on.

26 February 2012 at 11:29  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Graham Wood, I agree with your assertions. I think what is being proposed is just another example of destroying a building one brick at a time.

26 February 2012 at 11:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and articles like this are why it is so difficult to bring this nation back to Christ.

26 February 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger David B said...

I ask for information.

Are the 'serious spiritual implications for him as a communicant Anglican' greater, less or the same as the serious spiritual implications for them as a communicant Catholics of the reported 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception?

David B

26 February 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your soul is damned Cameron. There is NO salvation for you. Your sins will see to that...

26 February 2012 at 11:54  
Anonymous UK Fred said...

Methinks the Inspector-General has usurped powers that belond to none but the Third Person of the Trinity. And as for Cleethorpes Rock's argument, it does not take very long to see where that will go. Churches who refuse to marry homosexual couples will end up being closed and fined heavily for something like "failing to give equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation" and then where will the faithful worship.

26 February 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hardly Fred. Cameron is clearly going against his church’s teachings. It’s a logical assumption that this will be brought up at his divine judgement. All the Inspector has done is to issue a wake up call while he still breathes...

26 February 2012 at 12:14  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Anonymous said...
Sorry, did I read this right?
An Anglican vicar is complaining about a proposed change to the definition of marriage?

An ANGLICAN vicar?

A member of the CoE which exists SOLELY because Henry VIII wanted a new church to redefine marriage.

Seems that the vicar's bigotry is blinding him to his irony...

26 February 2012 11:25

Not entirely the case.

As I understand things;

Henry asked for an annulment, not a divorce, on the grounds that his first wife was not a virgin, having been married to his younger brother.

The Pope at the time refused to grant Henry an annulment I believe for political reasons under pressure from The Spanish Crown.

This particular pope had allowed annulments in the past for equally spurious reasons, which is one of the reasons Henry was more then a little upset.

Henry was a practicing Roman Catholic until his death, and a true believer.

It is worth reminding ourselves that our history books tend to be economical with the truth.

The CofE exists for mainly political reasons, Henry IIIV marriage problems are mainly a cover story for far deeper 16th century geopolitical realities.

26 February 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I'm still confused - Is this an argument over the use of the word 'marriage' (and its concomitant meaning within the Church) for same gender application; or an argument against the State ordering Churches to 'marry' same gender couples in their churches or face breaching equality legislation?

According to the BBC Featherstone endorses:-
'There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies and the Church of England has said it would not allow its churches to be used.

and even Tatchell is on record saying:-
"Permitting faith organisations to make their own decision on whether to conduct same-sex civil partnerships is the democratic and decent thing to do"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375

I can accept that changing the meaning of words causes confusion (a generational thing) until through time it becomes absorbed and the accepted as the appropriate importation of meaning - this is nothing new in linguistics. I can't understand why churches are prepared to marry couples who are not through practise, committed to their religion who are at best agnostic, who are living together (as William and Catherine) or have produced a brood of children long before taking marriage vows.

Where is the sense in the Church getting so stressed out when it doesn't even have to get involved - it's a State thing surely?

26 February 2012 at 12:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three cheers to Mr Mann for courageously speaking the truth. Alas, though, the C of E bishops are themselves mostly apostates and hence will prevent the exercise of proper discipline upon their fellow apostates, such as Mr Cameron. ...Doesn't every parish priest have to be a bishop unto himself in this case?

26 February 2012 at 12:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anglican’s don’t do Excommunication. Probably never had reason to. Until lately, Anglican politicians took their religious affiliations more seriously - it was part of their outlook. Well, needs must, and all that...

26 February 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger David said...

Puff! (With the 'u' pronounced as in 'rough'.) So you'd also ban from communion anyone who supported civil partnerships, or anyone actually in a gay relationship, whether open or secret?

Oh, hang on a minute: wouldn't you then have to ban quite a large number of bishops and priests themselves?

This is a non-starter.

26 February 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger len said...

The 'falling out' of the Anglican Church with the Roman Church is the best thing that ever happened to it.There had been disquiet in England regarding the role of Rome for over 500 years. It was Henry VIII who took the decisive act and asserted Royal Supremacy to restrict the interference of Rome. However, as is well known, Henry's primary motivation was his own selfish interests.

Henry remained staunchly Catholic in his doctrine but recognised the spreading influence of Protestantism and gathered around him various Protestants including Thomas Cromwell and of course his Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

(The only 'unforgivable sin' is to ignore the still small voice of the Holy Spirit because He administers salvation. He(The Holy Spirit) convicts of sin (Jn 16:9); He reveals Christ to the sinner (Jn 15:26) and He baptizes the new believer into the Body of Christ (I Cor 12:13).

(I hope David Cameron is listening.)

26 February 2012 at 12:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David B,

That 98% statistic is thoroughly bunk for numerous reasons, many which are discussed in numerous places around the internet. The real numbers are not so easy to quantify or obtain, but this is not a disagreement that they are fairly high whatever they may be.

But it is relevant to this so much as how the secular [in the meaning of what is of the time] understanding pervades and competes with the Christian message.

It is a Modernist error, where the 'world' is trying to appropriate Christianity to its own likeness. Though, like many errors, there is a kernel of truth in its acknowledgment of the goodness of Christian marriage; it tries to replicate the sacrament while denying the reason for the sacrament: a manifestation of the practice of the two great commandments as given by Christ himself to the Apostles, "Love God and Love Neighbor," and it is this that Christians must guard with our lives.

26 February 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Henry remained staunchly Catholic in his doctrine but recognised the spreading influence of Protestantism

He did indeed, and had the most protesting of them killed...

26 February 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger len said...

Communion is not something to be taken lightly!

'27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (have died). 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

26 February 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

UK Fred: "And as for Cleethorpes Rock's argument, it does not take very long to see where that will go. Churches who refuse to marry homosexual couples will end up being closed and fined heavily for something like "failing to give equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation" and then where will the faithful worship."

You're deploying the Slippery Slope argument but is the conclusion necessarily so, or even that likely? Equality issues like this depend on a notion of fairness where like should be treated alike. As such, I think there's an obvious get-out clause for Churches: civil marriage and religious marriage are not sufficiently alike to require equal treatment. Afterall, one is essentially about Holy Matrimony; a meaningless thing outside of the Church. Marriage in this sense is overlaid on top of civil marriage.

26 February 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said

"Communion is not something to be taken lightly!"
Neither Lad is to have the Lord God and our oath to Him as a Nation enshrined in our Laws and have OUR Sovereign (constitutional, yes?) and OUR Parliament (remember, they work for us???) make and break those oaths on our behalf.

It would have been better if we had been a heathen nation.

Just as Jesus judged the nation of Israel by it's leaders, so will we be judged by ours. They even try to change God's eternal laws as to what marriage constitutes between those who are defined within and who legally profess to keep them as so defined..An Oath is a CONTRACT just as a marriage is legally binding..it is NOT solely a request for blessing!

David Cameron is revealing what a slimy, untrustworthy person he really is and actually makes that liar Blair seem a man of honesty and integrity.

Ernst grips the rail with white knuckles and awaits the dismantling of our nation, VERY PUBLICLY!

E S Blofeld

26 February 2012 at 13:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the clergy are saying that Cameron should be refused Holy Communion, what of those who wear a collar, of whatever church, who have committed mortal sin against children.

26 February 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2012 at 13:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sometimes think that Cramner and (in this case) the Rev don't really get it. Cameron, parliment, judges, the liberal wing of the CofE don't care about technicalities or legalities. If there is something in cannon law or actual law that prevents them doing what they want then they will change it or just ignore it. It's a bit like the classic "It's legal to shoot a welshmen with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester after dark" if it is still on the statue book it would provide no real defence- the judges would ignore it.

Plus Cameron's vicar signed the letter calling for civil partnersips in church, so I doubt he's going to refuse communion! No current CofE Bishop would authorise the witholding of communion for supporting gay "marriage". The CofE's offical position is that lay people can be in an activily sexual civil partnership and still recive the sacrament of communion.

26 February 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

One of the first acts of the new Communist government in Russia was to change the legal definition of marriage. It changed the law such that a marriage could formed merely by writing names in a registration book. The marriage could be dissolved by drawing a line though the the written names. It was all very consistent with Leftist ideology that has always found traditional marriage too restrictive, and too inherently conservative. The change of law had all the predictable consequences, and within brief order, the Communist state changed the law back to its original form.

Now, I suppose you could say that Christian marriage was a subset of the new marriage law put into effect by the Communist Gov't as well. Theoretically a Christian couple in the Soviet Union (assuming they hadn't been shot by Lenin) could find a priest (assuming he hadn't been shot as well) and do things the old fashioned way. But that hardly has any standing in law. The name you attach to a relationship doesn't matter. The environment and ritual don't matter. Who officiates doesn't matter. What matters is what is enforceable in law because that is what determines how the institution performs the function it was intended to perform. If you change the legal structure of the relationship, you change how the institution shapes the behavior of those who enter it.

What is important is that which is legally enforceable in law. That is why those who would change the definitions are so willing to allow the church to maintain her own. What the church determines in its private sphere is unimportant. It has no legal standing. Those who would change the law realize this. Indeed, that is the whole of the point.

As for this idea that this is a change to Civil Law and not church law. The Christian Life is not hermetically sealed in a church building. It is supposed to influence everything we do. That includes the laws we support should we be in a position of public authority. Could a Christian likewise say "We are not proposing a change to the Christian definition of personhood. We are only proposing a legal change. Christians are still free to treat those with Down's Syndrome as persons under the law if they wish." You can't escape a charge of doing evil simply by saying "I am acting outside the confines of the church."

carl

26 February 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If this proposal becomes law. Cameron risks mass abstention by conservatives at the next election. Now, whatever criticism we have of the man, he’s no fool. What we have here is actually a Lib-Dem demand for their co-operation in government. Has to be, that’s whom the gay vote supports.

Logic demands therefore that he hands over the responsibility for the proposal back to the Lib-Dems*, it’s true home. Either that, or it fails to become law in this government. Come an outright Tory victory, it should quietly disappear, but until then, Lib-Dem co-operation is assured, and they continue to have high hopes for this degenerative indulgence.

* a couple of days before the next Election would be more than sufficient. We’ll let ‘the people’ have their say, what ! Chin up, queer types, nothing to fear, after all, you say the country supports you ! heh heh

26 February 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If you change the legal structure of the relationship, you change how the institution shapes the behavior of those who enter it.

I cautiously admit I may be getting out of my depth here being neither homosexual or religious, but the legal structure of the male/female relationship is not being changed as I see it, more like it's being broadened to be more inclusive.

That the institution shapes the behaviour of the parties concerned in relation to the 'forsaking all others' etc., should still mean the same and carry the same benefits to society and the Church.

26 February 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Is it really appropriate to have a public discussion about the worthiness or otherwise of another person to receive Holy Eucharist?

I don't believe so and the authorities of the Church should deal with these matters themselves.

26 February 2012 at 14:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Plus Cameron's vicar signed the letter calling for civil partnersips in church

So it's not just about the secular? Who'd have thought it?

26 February 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger graham wood said...

UK Fred said...
"Churches who refuse to marry homosexual couples will end up being closed and fined heavily for something like "failing to give equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation" and then where will the faithful worship."

UKF. Yes, you may be partly right in that it may come to an attempt to coerce the church, and this fear has been expressed before.
IHowever, it raises a bigger issue about the relationship between the State and Church, and the freedom of the latter to order, direct, and express its own internal doctrinal matters without interference from the State.

In such matters the church has a higher obligation to Christ as the Head of the church, than to any other human institution, or even the State.
The principle of rendering to Caeser that which is Caeser's, and to God that which is God's does actually apply.
The State therefore has no spiritual, or legal authority to do as you suggest.
That right has been fought for, and secured over our long history of freedom of religion, of conscience, and association.
Magna Carta alone declares the principle of the church's independence from State jurisdiction in such matters:
"The church in England shall be free"
Indeed, such protection is also clearly laid down in our own Bill of Rights which has never been repealed.
Be very sure therefore that no Coalition political party writ runs within the church of Christ!

26 February 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The last interaction I had with an Anglican clergy person (it was actually a lady rector) I got a flea in my Catholic ear because us Papists, apparantly, don't make you lot welcome at our Communion. My response was that we actually take it seriously, wheras you lot will let anyone up to the table in the name of your rather curious brand of Christian compassion. I see no reason to change my views. When did you suddenly acquire a moral backbone?

26 February 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Atlas shrugged @ 12:15 :

Thank you for that, it saved me the effort of reply. However, Annonymous' comments are too covenient a reponse to be abandoned by those who can't be arsed to look further than the end of their nose; it's a 'one size fits nearly all' argument for atheists, R.C's and notable 'others'.

Ironically, a blinding example of bigotry; or perhaps ignorance? ;o)

26 February 2012 at 15:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

[T]he legal structure of the male/female relationship is not being changed as I see it

There is no more 'male/female' relationship. There is a relationship between two partners. One possible combination is between male and female. It would instantiate into law the legal fiction that men and women are interchangeable parts in the relationship - that the function of marriage does not change depending upon who resides within it. The relationship between a man and a woman is not the same as a relationship between two men or two women. Men and women are fundamentally different beyond the simple biology of complimentary sex organs.

You have also abolished in a stroke any necessary connection between marriage and children. A heterosexual couple may have children. But the structure of marriage no longer carries any relevance to the decision. How can it when the marriage officially includes relationships that are by definition (even in type) incapable of conceiving a child? One of the primary purposes of marriage - to provide a place for children - has been officially removed. It makes du jure what has heretofore only been de facto. Even the residual moral influence of the template of marriage is stripped away.

That the institution shapes the behaviour of the parties concerned in relation to the 'forsaking all others' etc., should still mean the same and carry the same benefits to society and the Church.

Here you touch upon one of the principle concerns of expanding marriage to include homosexuals. It is not for nothing that 'monogamist' and 'breeder' are epithets in the homosexual community. Homosexual relationships are often both transient and 'open.' Since the relationship is sterile, there is far less risk attached to infidelity. There is no possibility of establishing a permanent blood relationship between the parties engaged.

It is also true that homosexuals, when given the right to marry, have not responded by actually getting married. There is not a great desire in the homosexual community to give up 'play buddies' for a white picket fence and a home in the suburbs. The concern therefore becomes that pressure will be exerted to alter the structure of marriage to remove the condition of sexual fidelity. In other words, homosexuals won't be shaped by marriage into a heterosexual pattern of life that they largely reject. They will demand that the structure of marriage be conformed more to their liking by removing the condition of sexual exclusivity.

In the US we have 'No Fault' divorce. I assume it is the same in the UK. That means one party to a marriage can abrogate that marriage without the consent of the other party. The vows taken at the beginning of marriage have been rendered null and void by the legal fact that they are unenforceable. It not longer matters that people promise to 'forsake all others.' Pressure was applied to change the legal structure of marriage so that people could be free to act on their own interests.

Now we have another specter emerging. A specter that will remove the connection between children and marriage. A specter that will alter the sexual boundaries of the relationship. We are rapidly converging on the Revolutionary model of marriage that is in fact not marriage at all. It is simply a series of 'at will' relationships that are formed and dissolved according to whatever whim strikes the people involved. It is a sociological disaster in the making. This seems what people want, because in their private lives they want to be free to do as they please - regardless of the impact on others. But when the sum total of those private actions reach a critical mass, the public consequences are devastating.

carl

26 February 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Thanks for such a considered response carl - I'm strictly on the side lines here of course, but it occurred to me wile reading, what may be the issue of a 'right' of either party to automatic divorce for those hetero couples who cannot conceive a child. Then of course that leads to the thorny issue of Gay/Les adoption argument - what a minefield.

26 February 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "It is also true that homosexuals, when given the right to marry, have not responded by actually getting married. There is not a great desire in the homosexual community to give up 'play buddies' for a white picket fence and a home in the suburbs."

You need to give it time, I think. These things take a while to become generally aspirational. I'm already seeing a difference in the young, gay people I know. When I was a teenager, I never even thought I could cohabit with someone without questions being asked and potentially being subject to violence and intimidation because of it. The times they are a'changin, you know.

26 February 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“What do you mean the value of my property has halved !!”

“Well, you have a homosexual couple either side of you, and it doesn’t help having that paedo living across the road either...”

26 February 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Please, please, anonymous! Henry VIII did NOT wish to redefine marriage. All these nonsenses about him prevail even today. He had no desire to alter the sacraments (unlike some in the Synod today!) and was very particular in maintaining catholic doctrine, so much so that he passed the Act of the Six Articles. Just for your edification, Henry VIII was NEVER a protestant. That was the mindset of his feeble son. Henry's concern was over the issue of marrying his deceased brother's wife. He was exercised over canon law not sacramental matters as such.

David Cameron may end up doing far more harm to the Church than Henry VIII could ever have done.

26 February 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Then of course that leads to the thorny issue of Gay/Les adoption argument

One of the most destructive consequences of which is to teach that fathers have no essential role in the upbringing of their children. The hidden assumption in gay adoption is that 'adults' raise children. It is assumed that a man contributes nothing unique or essential because he is a man. Likewise, a woman contributes nothing unique or essential because she is a woman. Rather it is assumed that adults occupy interchangeable roles in the life of a child, and therefore perform identical tasks. It must be so or those who support gay adoption must admit that gay adoption results in inherently inferior parenting.

In practice, it is women who get pregnant, and assume primary responsibility for the child. Marriage is supposed to compenstate for this reality by binding men to their children through a permanent relationship with his wife. Their role as a father within marriage is supposed to be unique and essential. But here we say "No, you contribute nothing essential just because you are a man. It is simply easier for two adults to manage a child instead of one. Any two adults will achieve the same result. One adult can achieve the same result but it will be more difficult."

Why then should he care about his children? Why shouldn't he stay single and screw whomever he might find willing, and leave any permanent consequences to her? It might not be strictly speaking fair, but since when is life fair? After all, she can get an abortion if she doesn't want the responsibility either.

Life in the post-modern world. Is it any wonder birth rates are hovering near the bottom of the Marianas Trench?

carl

26 February 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "“What do you mean the value of my property has halved !!”"

That's one of the points, actually. People are not minding having gay couples as neighbours these days though, like racists, there will always be some who don't progress. And why should people mind?

It's ironic that today I've found out a married couple I know with kids, one of whom is my godson bizarrely, have separated. On the same day, a friends-of-friend cohabiting gay couple on my facebook are celebrating 10 years together.

They have a lovely home, with well-loved cats, and are very much in love with each other by the look of it. No open relationship there and, as far as I know, happy neighbours living side-by-side in a cul-de-sac.

26 February 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Why then should he care about his children? Why shouldn't he stay single and screw whomever he might find willing, and leave any permanent consequences to her?"

I suppose "because he loves them dearly" is the wrong answer?

26 February 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

"and it doesn’t help having that paedo living across the road either...”

Hey! Who ever said Paedobaptists cause property values to fall?"

carl

26 February 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Slippery slope? Definitely. No way will the equalities lot let there be marriage for gays and separate marriage for heterosexuals in church or in the registry office. So called Christian Gays will demand a right to be married in a church.
Well done to this guest blogger but I do think the ex-communication of Cameron won't really bother him.
What I do wonder is why so many church men are speaking out on this but the Archbishop of Canterbury been so quite on the subject.

26 February 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I suppose "because he loves them dearly" is the wrong answer?

Yes, that seems to be working quite well these days, doesn't it? One has only to ponder the growing rates of illegitimacy and divorce and father-absence and the social consequences thereof. Evidently people choose to love themselves more.

carl

26 February 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. People are not minding having gay couples as neighbours these days though, like racists, there will always be some who don't progress.

How delightfully naive of you ! On the subject of race, did you think our politicians who shipped in tens of thousands of blacks and browns to the UK chose to live anywhere near them...

26 February 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oh, not again. Were is a rock? I need to bash my head repeatedly against a rock. Somehow the metaphor just seems ... fitting.

carl

26 February 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Paedobaptists ? We call them paedophiles over here. And if gay marriage goes through, they’ll be shouting for equality next...

(Incidentally, a lot of paedophiles, who knows, maybe the majority, are members of the queer community anyway, but keep that to yourself old chap, as nobody is supposed to know...)

26 February 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Yes, that seems to be working quite well these days, doesn't it?"

I think things are more complex than that. In the fairly recent past, extended families took a part in raising children, helping couples resolve issues, contributing financially, and so on. Now, people move away to find work and often both partners have to work. Communities are more transient places, too, and to such an extent that it's hard to call them communities. This is not a gay marriage thing at all.

26 February 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "(Incidentally, a lot of paedophiles, who knows, maybe the majority, are members of the queer community anyway, but keep that to yourself old chap, as nobody is supposed to know...)"

The overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual and the figure is probably under-reported. You're thinking in percentage of cohort terms, and even that is quite iffy.

26 February 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

In the fairly recent past, extended families took a part in raising children, helping couples resolve issues, contributing financially, and so on.


The legitimization of cohabitation, pregnancy outside marriage, illegitimacy, fornication and divorce (and increasingly adultery) have very little to do with the existence of extended families. It has to do with the changing place of sex in life. Specifically it has to do with the severance of sex from both marriage and children. It has to do with the idea that sex is primarily for personal gratification, and all other purposes are optional.

This is not a gay marriage thing at all.

You are correct of course. If I left a contrary impression, let me correct it. Gay adoption legally reinforces an idea that has already taken hold. But I personally think that the legitimization of homosexuality is a derivative of those changed attitudes (listed above) in the straight community towards the purpose of sex. You can't defend your own sexual liberation and yet restrict the sexual choices of homosexuals. That is the essential logic driving this whole movement.

carl

26 February 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "You can't defend your own sexual liberation and yet restrict the sexual choices of homosexuals. That is the essential logic driving this whole movement."

Well, I certainly agree with that. I have often said here in the past that the arguments for gay marriage as essentially justice-based, such that like should be treated alike.

As for the rest, it is a much wider thing involving the human condition. To a libertarian atheist like me, human nature is one way. To a religious person like you, it is another way.

26 February 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

" ... a married couple I know with kids, one of whom is my godson bizarrely ..."

Such integrity and honesty!

Rejecting Satan and taking vows on behalf of an infant commiting them to Christ and promising to help them grow in the faith.

Oh, and it's Godson - worth a capital even if the sponsor is a fraud.

26 February 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have two godchildren, actually. One Catholic and one CofE. My honesty and integrity is completely intact [1], though the Catholic ceremony was rather difficult. One positive was that my skin didn't bluster when I walked through the church doors and I wasn't struck by lightning during the photos outside. :)

[1] When you've finally worked through your abject public shame here and stopped trying to hit out at anything and everything to tr7y to cover it up, I'll tell you the details.

26 February 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Three threads on the go now Dodo, you're in complete meltdown. Lol.

26 February 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Please, explain away - I'm intrigued.

26 February 2012 at 19:29  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

That should have read 'older' not 'younger' brother, of course.

On the subject of authorized history books.

As a general rule they are only a useful guide to understanding when the reader learns how to properly read between the lines.

Classical history was far more understood as a series of conspiracies at the highest levels. As time has gone by our authorized history books have been carefully edited to exclude as many conspiracies as possible.

This process of de-education reached a fine art around 150 years ago, and is now destroying our true understanding of how things have long since been done. Which is by a whole series of often interlocked largely secretive conspiracies.

Our true rulers, ( in the past known as the priest-hoods) have now effectively gone underground, by gradually becoming mainly or entirely anonymous, hiding as they do behind their NGO's political party's, and other democratic processes, as they used to try to hide behind emperors or other monarchs, such as Henry VIII.

The question we should always ask ourselves is where do political ideologies and other world changing ideas actually come from?

For it is surely clear that absolutely none of them come from the bottom, where the vast majority reside.

Great, indeed ALL political, social, religious, and economic changes have always come directly from the very top of the pyramid of power. these then filter, either slowly, or more quickly down to the very bottom of society, by either natural, systematic or more forceable means.

This is as true to say about changes in the realms of religion fashion, music, art and literature, as it is about the setting up of pan-national institutions such as The IMF, EU, or UN.

How could institutions such as The IMF, EU, and UN have come into existence unless there existed powers that have long since transcend national borders and sovereignty?

Answer; they could not.

History informs us that there has only been just two powers that have transcended national sovereignty and borders in modern times.

The first is the power of GOLD, as now represented by the central banking system. The second, being that of the Roman Catholic Church.

It could be very well argued that The Vatican has been controlling both of these to varying degrees, for at least thousands of years, albeit now days in a less hands-on manner; this by secretly adopting, or co-opting largely Jewish bankers to perform its more dirty work for it, as well as utilizing its very well established diplomatic, educational, military, corporate, religious, and political connections throughout the entire globe.

I of course could not possibly comment on this matter with any real authority, however there does seem to be plenty of all kinds of evidence available to the public, which strongly suggests that this is indeed the case.

Could it be that there exists powers within the RCC, which secretly act to subvert the very teachings of its own clergy?

It is most certainly possibly, and absolutely certain that if it were currently doing so, it would not be anywhere near the first time.

26 February 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Explain how in good faith you could participate in this ceremony.

Catholic Rite of Baptism

The celebrant turns to the godparents and addresses them in these words:

Are you ready to help the parents of this child in their duty as Christian parents?
Godparents: We do.

Dear parents and godparents: You have come here to present this child for baptism. By water and the Holy Spirit he (she) is to receive the gift of new life from God, who is love.
On your part, you must make it your constant care to bring him (her) up in the practice of the faith. See that the divine life which God gives him (her) is kept safe from the poison of sin, to grow always stronger in his (her) heart.
If your faith makes you ready to accept this responsibility, renew now the vows of your own baptism. Reject sin; profess your faith in Christ Jesus. This is the faith of the Church. This is the faith in which this child is about to be baptized.

The celebrant questions the parents and godparents:

A. Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant: And all his works?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

B. Celebrant: Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God's children?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant: Do you reject the glamor of evil, and refuse to be mastered by sin?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant:Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

The celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents:

Celebrant: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

The celebrant and the congregation give their assent to this profession of faith:

Celebrant: This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
All: Amen.

26 February 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas wept. I of course could not possibly comment on this matter with any real authority

Isn’t that God’s truth, so why do you bother...

26 February 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You've got to admit Inspector it beats Sunday evening TV for entertainment value.

26 February 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Corrigan1 - saw your bit -

"The last interaction I had with an Anglican clergy person (it was actually a lady rector) I got a flea in my Catholic ear because us Papists, apparantly, don't make you lot welcome at our Communion. My response was that we actually take it seriously, wheras you lot will let anyone up to the table in the name of your rather curious brand of Christian compassion. I see no reason to change my views. When did you suddenly acquire a moral backbone?"

Actually, as an Anglican whose church has the Roman Rite (new updated version!), I've never had trouble with RC priests. This lady clergyperson was probably upset because she was not seen as sacramentally valid. Anglicans believing in the Real Presence are welcomed by many RC priests (I realise it is not canonically correct in England). The Pope has said that Anglicans can receive in France and other predominantly RC countries as there is no widespread Anglican availability. Belief in the Real Presence (or transubstantiation) is considered proper.

I think the Pope has an excellent track record in this. A lady clergyperson might beg to differ.

26 February 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Maybe we're being a bit harsh on the state of David Cameron's worthiness to partake in the Eucharist.

Can it really be demonstaed he is in a state of 'malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance'?

Surely what counts for him and all other Christian Members of Parliament is how they excersice their consciences when the vote is taken?

For us, it might be better if instead of considering the state of the Prime Ministers soul, we write and ask all our MP's how they intend to vote and let them know our views. Mine says he is non-commital at present but then he votes routinely in favour of abortion.

26 February 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Unfortunately for Rev. Mann et. al., a quick check of the origins of the Church of England will reveal that the Church of England is the only religious group for whom the Crown in Parliament actually does have the right to redefine marriage.

All spiritual jurisdiction within the Church of England is vested within the Crown; Parliament can pass primary legislation (i.e. that affecting the doctrine and liturgical rites of the Church of England) which, should it gain Royal Assent, trumps anything which General Synod can pass. It has never done so, but there is a first time for everything. Nothing in the legislation creating General Synod, or its predecessor the Church Assembly, alters the rights of the Crown in Parliament as regards the Church of England.

The Rev. Mann, Mr Cameron's Ordinary (presumably the Bishop of Oxford), and the Archbishop of Canterbury only hold office within the Church of England because the Crown has declared that it is lawful for them to do so; if any of them believes that they hold office by virtue of Apostolic Succession from the Pre-Reformation Church, independently of English law, they need to have another shufty at the fine print. Most (if not all) English Bishops are technically in Apostolic Succession due to earlier agreements with the Old Catholic Church, but since no foreign potentate or prelate has jursidiction in this realm of England, I'm not sure how that would stand up.

They could always go for disestablishment, but since the whole basis for them holding office and drawing salaries depends upon establishment, legally and theologically all bets would be off as to what rights the current Bishops and General Synod would have to run the Church of England. They could, of course, simply declare that all prior appointments were still valid, as I'm sure they would, but whether or not anyone else would have to accept that is a moot point.

Rev. Mann's and the Bishops' fates rest in the hands of Mr Cameron, Parliament and the Crown, not the other way round.

26 February 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If anyone doubts that voluntary dis-establishment is not the way forward, then let them reread Darter Noster’s post. We are entering a period of seriously godless politics. It’s a radical but necessary step to protect the Anglican church from the taint of earthly corruption...

26 February 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Good Lord, Your Grace.

How can you talking about chastising David Cameron by means of church discipline so quickly degrade to solely homosexuality on this thread ???? A greater thing is before us.

Surely the point is that Cameron has renaged on distinct tenet of faith that he espouses to , yet nothing is mentioned by his church (Anglican) regarding if this is acceptable behaviour and the obvious consequences that follow.

God Denier Clegg, old Ernst 'capiche's' but Cameron?? It is the very spirit of antichrist.

The spirit of Antichrist is that of man making himself his own god, that is, man following his own will. Satan’s original sin was disobedience. The sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience.

1 John 2:18-19

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (lawlessness);
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Is not marriage closely associated with God Himself, He established it?

2 Thessalonians 2:7

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The emphasis of the Bible relating to us as believers, should always be towards us on the needs of Christ, not the presumed needs of people. We must endure in faith towards His Will, not to please others.
If you were the boss of a company, how would you like it if the employees made up their own minds what was good for the company and charged forth according to their own wisdom and desires before you told them what to do or why you did not want them doing something without your permission? You wouldn’t like it at all! You might have a marketing strategy worked out in your mind, based on information not available to your office staff, that you were ready to put into effect or their actions destroy the effectivenes of processes and procedures within the company. Their efforts would destroyed any chance of your strategy being successful and may even bring your company into disrepute.

So it is with the Lord Jesus Christ. He knows exactly what He is doing and why it is important to do it and that WE MUST OBEY HIM.

E S Blofeld

26 February 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo graciously said

"Maybe we're being a bit harsh on the state of David Cameron's worthiness to partake in the Eucharist." All things relating to God are classed as either Righteousness or Sin...so if you/they betray fellow believers, does it warrant him/her/them standing in the pulpit and giving the lessons from the Good Book, let alone the Lord's Table? Ernst thinks not!

What His Grace is relating to is Church Discipline which St Paul elaborates on in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: "Take note of those who refuse to obey what we say in this letter. Stay away from them so they will be ashamed."

Scripture gives particular emphasis to Christians engaged in matters of sexual immorality, those creating DISCORD or STRIFE between members of the body of Christ, those spreading false teachings, and believers in OUTSPOKEN REBELLION to the spiritual authorities appointed by GOD in the church and His revealed Commandments and Institutions.

It isn’t Ernst's responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is OUR responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, 1 Corinthians 5:13
"But them that are without God judgeth . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

The idea of church discipline is totally consistent with the basic purposes of the church — evangelism and edification.
Church discipline is never easy or desirable but it is vital for the church to fulfil its God-intended purpose on this earth.

Personally, Ernst classes the action of Cameron and other Tory 'Christians' as TREASON TO GOD by changing or seeking to change His specific commandments!

Cameron is like Lucifer and has a place of total trust like the prince of darkness had.

What was Lucifer's betrayal? "I will be like the Most High!" The Divine Right to enforce or change Laws as The Law Maker?

There are two other relationships that parallel this original relationship between God and Lucifer. Christ and the Church. And the earthly example of that, the marriage relationship of Husband and Wife.

Jesus said, "No longer do I call you servants; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you." (Jn 15:15) He talks further of the interconnected relationship of the vine and branches. He prays to the Father that we (the Church) would be "ONE" with Him; just like He is with the Father.

If we need yet another example; God has "bent over backwards" to MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND what His desire is for His relationship with His children. He designed the marriage relationship. Of all human relationships, marriage is the closest; transcending even filial bonds and sibling relationships.

2b Con't 1/3

26 February 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2/3 con't

"For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones..for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh..This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."(Eph 5:30-32)

Ruth said to Boaz "take your maidservant under your wing for you are a redeemer." (Ruth 3:9) "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love." (S of S 2:4) These are all types, or figures, of that place of intimacy above the Mercy Seat, under and between the covering wings of the cherubim.

The fact that the divorce rate is of epidemic proportions is an indication of Satan's activity. As Satan worshippers or God Deniers gather for "prayer" Gatherings/meetings, one of the highest priorities on their prayer lists is for the break-up of marriages or the destruction of it.
Some of them even make it their "ministry" to go about breaking up marriages or "helping" people to become divorced…where is its sanctity. In this way satan effectively keeps slapping God in the face with his own rebellion. From Jeremy Kyle to cheap tat tabloids, the worshippers "rejoice" when yet another marriage has ended up in divorce or confusion over what marriage really is.

When Israel rebelled against God by turning to idols, God repeatedly referred to it as "adultery." (Jer 3:8) This is because God views His relationship with His own as a marriage. Full of intimacy. Characterising commitment, loyalty and trust.

Furthermore, the act of turning away from God is TREASONOUS! "Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, So have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel," says the Lord. (Jer 3:20)

When a spouse secretly schemes and runs off with a lover he/she has committed treason of the worst kind. Not only have they betrayed trust, but they mock God and His mandate. The "pattern and shadow" of things in heaven.
The representation of Christ's intimate relationship with His "friends"...the Church. His Bride!

BELIEVERS ARE OFTEN GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST GOD! Jesus said, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love." (Jn 15:10) How often do we wilfully disobey? How often do we have priorities OTHER THAN GOD, Mr Cameron?
How often do we worship Satan or just give him a toe-hold? When we follow Satan and his desire to destroy Gods commandments and Institutes we participate in his treachery. With whom is our allegiance? REMEMBER...Satan is now God's enemy!

Israel said, "All that the Lord may say...we will hear and do it." God responded, "Oh that they had such a HEART in them." (Deut 5:29)

26 February 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

3/3 concluded

In the Old Testament, if a divorce occurred, and the wife married another, she was not allowed to return to the first husband. Yet, as God likens Israel's rebellion to a wife "playing the harlot with many lovers" He reaches out in love, "Yet return to Me." (Jer 3:1)

Why Discipline towards repentance is vital, before the last resort of expulsion.

If there is still no response in repentance and obedience, the church is to apply the procedures of excommunication as directed in Matthew 18:17..


Treachery/treason against the Most High God by not just ignoring His Laws but actually CHANGING them should never be seen as mere tosh and piffle, young man.

A journalist stated 3/5/2010 regarding Conservative equalities manifesto prior to the last election;

"This makes the Conservatives the only one of the major political parties to raise the prospects of re-classifying civil partnerships to marriage in formal manifesto or policy documents. However, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg writing for PinkNews.co.uk has pledged his personal support to changing the law. The Green Party similarly support full gay marriage. The Conservative Party’s commitment is rather flakely say critics because they may consider not to change the law, whereas the Greens and the Liberal Democrat leader has given the change their full support." It appears ole Dave has come up trumps, by brilliantly spinning over the vague wording to 'not scare the natives' but once in power, you can take those vague promises to the bank.

Did Nick and those nasty lib dumbs make you, Davey Boy?

Ernst

26 February 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So Ernst and len are you now expressing belief in Holy Communion?

27 February 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst particulary loved/liked this (facebook equivalent of 'thumbs up';

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106730/Berlin-demands-foreign-legion-inspectors-descend-Athens-collect-taxes.html"

It appears that not only is no state sovereign in EU (though some states are more equal than others) but that foreigners can invade/bolunteer 2 check out your own ability to correct your failings? Danke Schoen, Unseren Vorgesetzten.

"Berlin wants to send German inspectors to Greece to ensure all taxes that are due are collected.

The controversial move will see a 'foreign legion' of 160 or so taxmen head south to try and root out corruption and make sure national coffers are filled in a country where revenue evasion is an art form." Ze Germans are coming vit zere rools unt regulatiuons, JA!

It is only a matter of time, UK, a matter of time!

As the Coalition cannot 'smell' the difference between genuine work experience and 'slave labour' to justify paying meagre benefits to those unfortunate to find themselves unemployed perhaps those nice hun fellas can pop over and 'ave a word' in IDS's and Gideon's ear about the best way to accomplish this.

Or would Ernst's recommendation to the JSA claimants that they take a broom, dustpan and brush and start sweeping the road they live on, may just guarantee them employment with Veolia or other refuse companies in the future rather than lose ₤55 per work?

Or to paraphrase Scrooge '"If they (JSA Claimants) would rather not stack tins and so lose their monies of ₤1.50 per hour ,' said Scrooge, 'they (DWP) had better do it quickly, and help decrease the surplus welfare bill."'

A Word to The Wise, if there is indeed anyone of that calibre in Government...If it looks funny and smells funny, please place in recycleable container kindly provided by local authority. There's me fine boy's at the DWP.

Ernst 'I don't bleed'n well believe it' Blofeld

ps

Work.Exp. at Tesco might have been able to include the odd hour on the till (understanding and handling money!), Working on the Bakery or Butchers/Fish counters (Understanding perishables and the importance of nutrition), etc and not just putting tins of Heinz baked beans besides Tesco's own brand.

Analogy - could'nt...Orgie @ brothel...Lockin @ Pub.
NUMPTIES, the lot of them!

27 February 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo hoped against hope that Ernst and Len were closet papists

"The Way of Dodo the Dude said 27 February 2012 00:08...

"So Ernst and len are you now expressing belief in Holy Communion?"

Dear boy, only YOU could read something about the Lord's Supper and completely misrepresent the expressed opine (Ernst does not believe in the literal Presence of Christ within the wine and bread and neither did the Apostles or early church. It was symbolic. That RCC has been doing it Transubstantiated is irrelevant. The act of use for something over a long period of time does not, in itself, make a thing done correct especially if it was done differently prior under Apostolic reference in Scripture!

1 corinthians 11

"The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me'."

or that it could also be referred to the Agape feast, a shared communal meal with which the Eucharist was originally associated.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

This is not the rite performed by RC Priests.

Good try, but no Cigar, old fruit.

Ernst

27 February 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

The Anglican Church has openly Gay Priests and congregations. It stands to reason therefore is their right, as fully integrated members of the flock, to be blessed and married before God, whom they serve with honor and dignity, so Jesus' very Light be revealed to the world.

If, like me you think this Church is based upon St Paul's tosh of forever remaining with a thorn in his side, (and most likely a prick up his rear), this den of denial is most suitable for anyone who wants someone else to walk the walk because its too... damn... hard. All they have to do is submit to their compulsive-suffering and believe they are saved by this someone they never met. It worked for an ex-Prime Minister and now this one to. Three Hail Marys and a bottle of gin.

27 February 2012 at 01:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One does wonder why it would be suggested that the Church of England refuse communion to Mr. Cameron when it is evident that the majority of bishops agree with him. The evidence for this is that the bishops refuse to discipline their colleagues or presbyters who openly hold the same view, and indeed practice it. Enforce the canons and rubrics on the clergy, and then worry about the laity, regardless of how highly placed the layman in question.

27 February 2012 at 02:07  
Blogger TJ McMahon said...

One does wonder why it would be suggested that the Church of England refuse communion to Mr. Cameron when it is evident that the majority of bishops agree with him. The evidence for this is that the bishops refuse to discipline their colleagues or presbyters who openly hold the same view, and indeed practice it. Enforce the canons and rubrics on the clergy, and then worry about the laity, regardless of how highly placed the layman in question.

27 February 2012 at 02:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Does homosexual marriage point to the end times?

http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64769/

27 February 2012 at 07:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again our sloppy use of words is the cause of all this argument.

"Marriage" is a word that needs defining. It is the union of a man and a woman who share everything with each other and who bring up children in the love and fear of the Lord. They stick together until death parts them.

"Friendship" and "partnership" are different because they do not involve children and they do not demand total commitment for life, although most of us do, in fact, have friends for life and partners who we share almost everything with.

"Relationship" and "affair" implies that the two people (or three?) involved are only temporarily and even illegally or immorally in contact with each other.

Why do we muddle all this up?

Making buggery respectable is no reason for wrecking our family base.

27 February 2012 at 07:58  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It has been suggested above that social organisation and control never comes from the base of the pyramid but from the top. I beg to differ as the Christian church was born from the humble fishermen called by Christ to follow him. From those few soles, the greatest influence this world has ever known was born (saving the following of the Beatles according to John Lennon). The Church of England should be the rallying cry against reform of the law that takes Christianity away from Biblical truth. But where is the volume of support? We, as lowly fishermen, called by Christ, must rise up and make our voice heard, for surely we can't rely on the leaders of the CofE. I haven’t heard in the media anything from the leadership of the Evangelical Alliance, The Elim Church, The Assemblies of God, The Baptists, The Methodists or any of the larger groups of Churches in the UK. I understand the Quakers are in favour of Change but they seem to be an exception and I can't understand where they have gone so very wrong.
It must a lack of media coverage that we are not getting the true picture of dissent from the proposed change. Just as the BBC has by biased reporting given the extreme left wing more credence than they are due, so too the moral majority are being ignored as un-newsworthy. The BBC has admitted that Christianity has been ignored because it has 'broad shoulders' and only racism should be handled with care. The resultant outcome was that any criticism of Islam was taken as a racist attack but Christianity was fair game.
In the words of the old hymn;
‘Stand up, stand up for Jesus you soldiers of the cross’.

27 February 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Tiddles seemed to have nine lives on this post! How does he manage to write so much? A long time ago I used to be the favourite handler for Arthur the cat promoting Catomeat on the TV adds. Sometimes I would use a false paw to get the food out of the tin. Is that how you do it? Do you put the quill in his little paw.Blowfeld.
BTW when you celebrate the Lords supper, do you give tiddles a biscuit and a saucer of milk? He won't understand of course but I'm sure he won't feel left out.

27 February 2012 at 08:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Mann and Mr Mugabe are right. Gays are "worse than pigs". It is good to know Cranmer upholds such worthy views:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106720/Robert-Mugabe-rambling-anti-homosexual-rant-David-Camerons-global-gay-rights.html

27 February 2012 at 08:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A PolyNominal said

"Tiddles seemed to have nine lives on this post!"
As indeed do you, me recently chastised thick skinned polynominal commenter. Another moniker to add to the rap sheet? DanJO will be chuffed to bits.*OOH I Do Declaire, Rhett*

"How does he manage to write so much?" He's a decendant from Felix..the wonderful, wonderful cat!

"A long time ago I used to be the favourite handler for Arthur the cat promoting Catomeat on the TV adds. Sometimes I would use a false paw to get the food out of the tin."
Dear boy, you truly are a such fantasist that even Mitty would be green with envy at the sheer nerve..did you not run the mile below 4 minutes before Sir Roger Bannister also?

"He won't understand of course but I'm sure he won't feel left out."
Tiddles has no comprehension whatsoever about the Lord's Supper as he is an animal but from what you state young man, NEITHER DO YOU!

Morning Fella.

Ernst 'Blowing away the cobwebs that stick to it's prey' Blofeld

27 February 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo,

I have two Godchildren. It's very hard to say no when asked to do this by family especially. The real question for me was why do a couple who have no religious beliefs at all, and never go to church, want to have their kids baptised anyway? A church full of people, many of whom would never darken it's doors again, and a priest who probably knew this. The answer is that it's become a kind of social tradition, and that's why the 70% figure constantly bandied about is essentially meaningless.

27 February 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks
Yes but your not claiming to be the paradigm of all virtue and honour on this blog.

My post was directed specifically at Don DanJ0 who I'm sure will have a better explanation than 'social convention' given his scrupples for behaving with integrity.

Ernst
Are you accusing me now of being Mr Integrity? I take it from here on in anyone who makes adverse references to your posts will be seen as having the one source. There's a word for that.

27 February 2012 at 11:40  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

Talking of the Thirty-Nine Articles, I wonder why + Rowan Cantuar is depicted standing at the Lord's Board defying Article 28 which with all the sanity of a faith grounded in Scripture concludes: "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." I'd have assumed as leader of the Anglican Communion, the ABC would moderate his manual acts to pastorally appropriate levels for the sake of the peace of the churches.

Kendrick Morris@27 February 2012 01:13 vulgarly presumes that the thorn in the Apostle Paul's side (qv 2 Cor 12:1-10) is homosexuality. Spong is one of the main proponents of this anachronistic misreading of Scripture. Most Biblical Scholars (and Spong is neither) presume this thorn is either migraines or malaria and from the context the thorn afflicts Paul for a set duration and was not a lifelong condition. Regardless, Paul, according to the first century mindset, would have considered homosexual desires, not as a predetermined psycho-sexual mould, but like any other sexual vice which should be repented of and healing and forgiveness sought through the cross of Christ.

As for Arden Forester @ 26 February 2012 20:54 who belongs to an 'Anglican' parish which follows the New Roman Rite, I wonder what sort of twisted logic and false ecclesiology would justify using the rites of an institution which has consistently invalidated your holy orders, your sacraments and your very status as a Christian church?

If you have a hankering for faux Cranmeresque liturgy a la Ratzinger, want to forget why the Reformation ever happened and feel the need to embrace Rome's new and old errors, join the ritual ghetto known as the Ordinariate! But you will need to forget this one very important fact: the Anglican patrimony would never have developed unless our forbears in faith had had the courage to repudiate the tyrannical and murderous pretensions of the papacy. The use of the New Roman Rite betrays a sad self-estimation from an ecclesiological standpoint and is the liturgical equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.

Regardless of these tolerated absurdities, I approach the Sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death with enough charity to presume that my fellow communicants undergo the same preparation as I endeavour to do, as outlined in the BCP catechism: that we examine ourselves, that we repent of our sins and purpose to lead a new life, that we have a living faith in God's mercy through Christ, that we live in thankful remembrance of Christ's death and that we remain in charity with all.

Examining ourselves by God's Word is the key and that is why + Thomas Cantuar placed the Decalogue at the beginning of his 1552 rite of Holy Communion to remind us that it is against God's objective standards that we assess our flawed and fractured lives. It is for the clergy to expound to their congregations what is required of those who approach the holy mysteries. It is on their consciences if they neglect their duties.

Regardless, God will judge those who eat and drink unworthily. And we shall one day stand before the judgement seat of the One who so graciously said: "Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you."

27 February 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the self confessed PolyNominal Addict, j'accuse'd Ernst

"I take it from here on in anyone who makes adverse references to your posts will be seen as having the one source. There's a word for that."
And the word will no doubt end up as part of the next moniker you pretend is not you....until of course, we arrive at the next 'fess', when you will blurt out all like a caught, red-handed, frightened child at the Cop Shop.

"Are you accusing me now of being Mr Integrity?" Tis only a matter of time, Lad, should the Lord grant Ernst longer days here to see it printed across many comments and threads, as has occurred over this weekend.

Don't think lots of 'Hail Marys', 'Our Fathers' is going to cut the mustard for you.. do you?.

Ernst, you naughty, unrepentant boy.

27 February 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, part of the reason was ignorance, given I was a naive 21yo or thereabouts at the time and this was before the advent of the Internet. Nevertheless, I think I still behaved very well in the circumstances but, as I've said, I'll tell the whole story when Dodo stops acting like a drowning man grasping for a lifejacket as far as reputations are concerned. :)

27 February 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Now I'm a considered atheist and also aware of the content of the rite, I would refuse to be anyone's godparent on principle. Moreover, I would never want to burden a child with a Catholic upbringing aa I think it borders on abuse.

27 February 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Danj0. In what way do you feel a Catholic upbringing borders on abuse? Speaking as someone who had one, I wouldn't say that myself.

27 February 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger Jon said...

Reverend Mann, I'm afraid the appeals to parts of the Bible that the CoE still chooses to abide by, the human- authored Book of Common Prayer, and the Canons of the very human- authored Church of England look extremely circular, logic- wise, to anyone who doesn't accept the unquestionable validity of at least one (preferably all) of these sources. Since, I'm guessing that the Prime Minister's religion is fete- based rather than faith- based (a phrase I hope I've just invented, as I rather like it!), I don't think he'll find your view persuasive.

In your position, I would probably dwell longer on the evidence for the success of heterosexual marriage as a societal unit (for successful rearing of children) against the homosexual alternative. The trouble is, that since the Church is one of the few forces still standing in the way of gay marriage, you're actually denying yourself the cohort required to make a successful statistical comparison.

In the meantime, the Church continues to disregard Canon B16 for a variety of other offences, but as ever, chooses to focus on the splinter in the eye of a minority group to which it is curiously drawn.

Carl - I would only ever get married when I can call it marriage. I'm not settling for a civil union. I know a number of people with these already, and that's fine for them, but I see no reason why I shouldn't get the same legal recognition as my straight friends for my relationship - after all I pay the same taxes and buy them all the same Le Creuset kitchen-ware. Dan's right - times are changing, and even if they weren't, I don't see "it hasn't happened before" as a reason why it couldn't in future.

27 February 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If the definition is changed; I wonder how other countries British people travel to, will view the new classifications on passports?

Clearly, all Brits are going to have a, let's say' 'a difficult time'.

27 February 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger Jon said...

D. Singh - I don't think that's true. I don't remember hearing that the South Africans, the Dutch or any of the other countries who have already instituted gay marriage have had any trouble travelling...

Is that really all you've got?

27 February 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Larks, it's low level indoctrination. Every former Catholic I know retains a residual sense of guilt even though they no longer believe in the Catholic god. The religion is designed that way as far, as I can see, to create a symbiotic sort of relationship with an ideal that can never be attained in this lifetime and the institutional means of repetitively absolving the guilt the religion itself instills. Truth be told, it gives me the creeps. My experiewnce is as a peripheral-Liverpudlian with a step-family who were Catholic. I've also worked in a Catholic charity in my younger days.

27 February 2012 at 14:15  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

Mr Inspector-General
With reference to your comment at 14.03 as to Cameron's possible manoeuvres on this issue I wonder if a different reason exists for him pressing on with this "reform" - namely that the homosexual community have "got something on him"?

27 February 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, we can't go on together with suspicious minds!

And I do wonder what Mr Integrity makes of your suggestion that 'he' is really 'me'! Not too happy I shouldn't think.

27 February 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst does not believe in the literal Presence of Christ within the wine and bread and neither did the Apostles or early church. It was symbolic.

Jesus said:

"I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."

"Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."

27 February 2012 at 17:15  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

And you want people to swallow that?

27 February 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said:

Take and eat. This is my body.

And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying:

Drink all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

27 February 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught: Jesus commanded it but it's entirely up to you.

27 February 2012 at 17:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you know Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically. Assuming he actually said this things.

27 February 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Ah great. The nice mobile theme is back. Sorry Dodo that anonymous was me. Complete accident.

27 February 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, so you’re the chap Integrity who used the ever so obvious false paw in the Arthur adverts. (27 February 2012 08:51 ). One presumed the paw was all that was left of a previous less obliging advert celebrity. Such are the vagaries of fame.

Well done that man Blofeld for reminding us we were off thread. The Inspector is going to do his utmost to try and stick to them in future. Out of respect for our Archbishop and the effort he puts in for us. Homosexuality is a sore subject (…pun intended…) on this site, but that’s no excuse.

Rather impressed at your output of late, can one assume they have you (…and perhaps Tiddles too…) on Amphetamine Sulphate ??

27 February 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tanfield (Cameron)…the homosexual community have "got something on him"?

An interesting thought Sir, and with precedent. It did for Portillo and who’s to say attitudes today about a gay prime minister or a bi-sexual one would be any different.

However, no need to inhabit the squalid world of the blackmailer of yester-year today - a vast fortune from the press, books and film rights awaits a kiss-and-teller, and unlike blackmail, you won’t be sent to prison for it either...

No, the only people who have anything on him is Clegg and the rest of his unprincipled, granny selling, manifesto ignoring, Liberal-Degenerate party. Tis the unpalatable price of co-operation. A law through the back door, so to speak. Damn shameful way to operate, what !

27 February 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks, asked ...
How do you know Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically.

Because Jesus pressed His case when He scandalised the listening Jews.

He didn't modify His statements, He made them more definitive. They were not qualified or explained as metaphor and allegory as Jesus often did when speaking in parables.

27 February 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Don DanJ0 said:
... a Catholic upbringing aa I think it borders on abuse ...
... Every former Catholic I know retains a residual sense of guilt even though they no longer believe in the Catholic god.


Abuse to learn about the God of Love; of His incarnation as Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection? To hear about eternal Heaven and ever lasting Hell?

I should think residual guilt is a good thing given the stakes involved! Few lapsed Catholics I know dismiss the idea of the Christian God. Instead they drift away from the Church and the channels of saving grace it offers.

Guilt is the operation of the conscience, an awareness of the need for return and forgiveness, drawing the person back to God.

Some do manage to intellectualise God out of their lives and either shut out His call or find some way of rechannelling the guilt that arises.

It is true child abuse to deprive children of a Christian upbringing.

27 February 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OoiG kindly inquired re Ernst's current prescribed jelly beans?

'can one assume they have you (…and perhaps Tiddles too…) on Amphetamine Sulphate ??"

Not in the slightest but Ernst noted with pleasure and amusement the way His Grace was able to administer sodium amytal [intra-vainally] into the poor fowls system over the weekend.
He has been fessing like a schoolgirl munching on chocolate button Ganja Cake all weekend.

This has led some observers to feel that the reason Dodo 'fessed' was the drug amobarbital was administered, which does not increase truth-telling, but merely increases talking; hence, both truth and fabrication are more likely to be revealed in that construct, as they were!

It was like a blog commenting version of the Usual Suspects, where Keyser Soze sets about killing off everybody linked to him as Dodo did with his alters.

Best bloom'n weekends commenting and a lesson in self flagellation that old Ernst has viewed for ages, and more than worthy of putting the highest ranked in the order of Opus Dei to shame.

Ernst, that man. Stay most excellent, dude!

28 February 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, 'Dodogate'
is now becoming seriously boring.

The reason I 'fessed in October 2011 was because our host dobbed me in without any warning! At the time we were "reported" to "Sir" by a motley crew for allegedly bullying another blogger and bringing the site into disrepute.

What else could I do?

The actual facts are that the alternate ID's posted infrequently. There was one notable exception a few weeks earlier when our good host and I fell out over the Vatican and Europe when he suggested the Pope had "lured" other countries into the Union.

Have I continued being a polynominal blogger as suggested by our host, or at least understood by you as such, over the weekend? No. Will I do it again? No. With hindsight, do I think it a great crime, a fraud, the sin that can never be forgiven? Nah.

I guess I'm going to be plagued with this for a time. Funnily enough I don't mind you taking the rise. It's the distortion, exaggeration, self rightous and 'holier than thou' approach of some I object to.

28 February 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Night, night.

28 February 2012 at 01:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo made Ernsty giggle

"Ernst, 'Dodogate'
is now becoming seriously boring. "

'Dodogate', Good Lord, it is now taking on monumental proportions as a scandal!!

Ernst expects the last vestiges of those hacker chaps to be break;n into your blog account.

Look forward to seeing a slightly ruffled bird sitting and giving evidence to Lord Leveson and trust you will give us all a share in the 600k in damages or will you do a 'churchy' and say you are hanging on to your funds out of principal and it was neber ever about the spondiddly.

"Funnily enough I don't mind you taking the rise." Dear boy, Ernst is NEVER malicious, only ever cheekily impish.

Ernst, me fine, wonderful, truly amazing fowlie. (Well, with a potential of 600K , that's fine start in brown-nosing from 'Yours Truly'.

Ernst

PS

Please don't litigate against His Grace for any vexatious damages. Our Gracious host, the poor fellow, is reduced to scrounging morsels from the likes of BT and ESPN and hasn't got a pot to produce in.
Wish he would take adverts from Lloyds or RBS , now there are a group of people in dire need of ecclesiastical pardons!

Nighty Night likkle dickie.zzzz

28 February 2012 at 01:08  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

@Judicious Hooker

vulgarly presumes that the thorn in the Apostle Paul's side (qv 2 Cor 12:1-10) is homosexuality.

This is not vulgarity, this is what is taught as healthy to childen across the United kingdom by law. Do you want to make them criminals for thinking otherwise?

Most Biblical Scholars (and Spong is neither)...

So John Shelby Spong, rose up the ranks to become Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark by convincing himself and everyone he was a Christian, that he knew what God meant for Mankind... but he was not a Bible scholar? You make him out to be a parrot, a repeater of what he didn't know, thus an abuser of young minds to not think for themselves.

Suffer the little children.

28 February 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

It was his eyesight or headaches due to the beatings he received rather than the sin you refer to. How pathetic, to justify your own sin leanings so.

Galatians 6:11
'See with what large letters I have written you with my own hand.'

He may have ben born with a deformity of the eyes that worsened or the supernatural revelation by Christ on the road to Damascus permanently affected his vision.

or a limp or violent migraines caused by his beatings/stoning and abuse by the hands of those who wished him dead....
2 Corinthians 11:23-30

23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.

oe even emotional because he felt deep discouragement and a heavy heart that many false apostles and others were challenged and trying to discredit his apostleship and work (Galatians 6:17, 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12-15,)

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me (Allowed By Almighty God) a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet (Beat, blow, hit, cuff) me, lest I should be exalted above measure."

Presume the translation you and other homosexual supporters prefer is the scottish on meaning of Buffet - a kind of low stool, 'pouffe'.

What ever it was, it kept him humble and aware of the need for Gods' grace and its sufficiency (neither in abundance or want) ...unlike your good? self!.

Ernst, prideful sinner.

ps

Suffer the little children.

Oh they surely will, if you and your sinning kind have any say in it.

28 February 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

''Dodogate'' - how apt; I like it! :o)

28 February 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

there was given to me (Allowed By Almighty God) a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet (Beat, blow, hit, cuff) me, lest I should be exalted above measure."

Unchristlike, then. Jesus faced his demons for 40 days and nights and no longer let them return to make a home in him, ever. Perfected in attitude.

St Paul could not do that, but rather heard a voice in his head telling him Jesus was the stronger God to follow. Perfected in dhimmitude.

There is a way to enlightenment and a way to blindness. Which way did you follow, by searching your heart or by submission?

"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

And you don't get it; and his teaching's are written down in plain sight in front of you.

Keep your priesthood and inverts away from children.

28 February 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger len said...

There is much speculation as to what Paul`s 'thorn in the flesh' was.

I cannot think why because scripture states quite clearly what it was.Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12:7-8, "Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-to keep me from exalting myself!The Greek word that is translated there as “messenger” is angelos, which is the common Greek word for “angel.” This answer is given even more credence by the fact that Paul knew the Old Testament well, and the word “thorn” is used multiple times in its pages to refer to enemies of Israel (Numbers 33:55; Joshua 23:13; Judges 2:3; Ezekiel 28:24)

There is the answer ......a messenger of Satan....It seems that this demon spirit that would go ahead of Paul and cause riots in the cities, cause people to begin stoning him, before he even opened his mouth and situations such as:
(Acts 13:50-52) (Acts 14: 2-10)

28 February 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Your Grace, is elevating the Eucharist in the book of common prayer? Or is it a Popish superstition?

28 February 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

jimbo

Catholics do not have 'superstitions'. They understand the profound significance and 'timeless' words of consecration and show the Eucharist the adoration due the Real Presence of Christ.

28 February 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

kendrick Morris @28 February 2012 17:18 said/gibbered...

What on earth are you saying, it's nonsensical tripe.

Are you a modern day secondary school teacher?

"Keep your priesthood and inverts away from children."

It appears it's way too late to keep you and your illiterate lot a million miles from OUR children.

0/10 fella. Poor show and no smiley face sticker.

You probably don’t think you deserve Zero in this assessment, do you Morris.
Ernst agrees. You deserve -1.

Off to the Deputy Head's office, Morris. Bottoms Up, boy!.

Professor Ernst 'WHACKO' Blofeld

ps

Your father is not Desmond John Morris, by any chance?
It would explain the monkey behaviour and why having you attending this august blog is like 'Zoo Time'.

29 February 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

@E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

Blessed are those who are persecuted for rightousness sake...

As you don't understand the beattitudes, an attitude like yours is, well what it is.

From a fake.

29 February 2012 at 04:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Morris

So share your wisdom and insight. Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what is His message?

29 February 2012 at 14:26  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst: apropos of nowt in particular, but I've often thought, and taught, that all students of psychology (and 'history' too) ought to begin their studies by reading Desmond Morris' 'Naked Ape' - it sort of lets you know what you are in for, as it were. :o)

29 February 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

So share your wisdom and insight. Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what is His message?

My words should have been poetry, but not one person enjoyed these insights… not the Christians here, those bartered for Heaven because of their pain, having never realised the ‘Kingdom of God’ is here on earth.
No more or less than the eroticists, pained by inadequacy, found they could consume the physical form. All having eating-disorders used to forget. Filling themselves with beauty they do not have, until they are a sick and ugly, and the little children become the only meal they have left. The face of the child they once were, mocking them.
Read D M Murdock's research on comparative religions to find out that after Jesus died, Emperor Constantine's 'Christianity' amalgamated and absorbed the Greek, Roman and Jewish religions, just as Islam today appropriates The Prophets (pbut) as heirs to their faith.
Understand then, that Jesus' teachings were not intended by him to further the Torah “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews on an old one. If he does, he will have torn that new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.”

Jesus was born with silver spoon in his mouth. Promised to be a Chosen Person when he had done nothing to earn it. One of a preferential group by Law.
Jesus, demonstrated his Great Escape from this totalitarianism, by a path exactly the same as the one the needed today. Anyone whose buys into something not their own suffers from conscience and does not want to become dependent on the common opiates used to forget. Humble yourself, sit still and have courage to face your demons , be shamed by the remembering, and forgive - for you and they did not know what you were doing - to be released. Simple psychology. These are the Beattitudes laid out sequentially in Luke 6:20–22. Or remain shackled between a carrot and stick led by Halal and Haram, Kosher and non-Kosher, Double-speak and Hate-Speak, so you could say you were a ‘good person’ because your life was not your own, you had given it to God or State so you could claim blameless.

‘Love God with your heart mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself’ is for any deity and any neighbour. Only you know the highest and lowest to serve. Then you see a person carrying one without the other, using more God to fix the world or more humanitarian aid to fix the world, compensating for the lack of truth or love in their lives. Employing self-deception to give their ego a sense of righteousness. Condescension makes them gods, for whom they ‘help’ become victims and dependents.
Such are the vanities to make a world without themselves ever having to suffer; to enslave others by legislation for their own 'Human Rights for human wrongs', to demoralise a population so that the communist/fascists can walk through Belgium to conquer Europe again. No 'Childen’s Rights for the protection of a mother and father' to be seen. And the light goes out.
The youngsters in your home despise you, and reject you as a cowards, submitters and dhimmis, passing their resentments by searching for love in all the wrong places. Problems that depraved politicians will fix, at a price.

And all because you rejected yourself.

1 March 2012 at 06:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Morris, yes, but who is Jesus Christ?

1 March 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Morris, forgot to ask you, who was Muhammad?

1 March 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

Jesus could be fictitious, dead or a Time Lord. That does not make the principle of seeing by 'the narrow way' any more different as it was then, as it is now. Teachers don't hold onto their teachings and bask in their glory.

'Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never change' means Gods and peoples will come and go, but the principles to awakening from any stupor are to a path of repentence. Only those who realise they are sick will find it. There is no other way to let go which is not a denial or compensation for what you did when you did not listen to your own conscience. Small lies become bigger lies, become proud lifestyles. More love-hate, (now called bi-polar), relationships. From pleasant young men to butt-plugged outragers.

The present words for slavery are: socialism, sexuality, and religion. Imprinted minds, bodies and souls respectively through intimidation when they were children. When adults declare they are apostates through counselling or revelation they receive death threats from their peers. To show veherment dispeasure on a tram for society, gets you imprisoned.
Your freedoms have been systematically taken away from you and you shout for more stricter sharia. Letting someone else drive your car because you have lost total confidence in yourself. Public humiliation and confession are becoming the norm. 34,000 children last year had been reported for racist hate crimes by schools. Children are no longer exempt from the law.

Mohammad (pbuh) could be fictitious, dead or a Time Lord. His teachings reveal his character, to submit to Allah and Mohammad's (pbuh) will. 'Who will rid me of this man' was enough to get a man murdered, and the murderer exonerated. A regime of fear and a membership spying upon one another to keep in line or be honor killed, which brings us back to our surveillance society and thought-crimes.

To actually follow The Way and no longer be a slave to compulsion, is a criminal act. They see your eyes shine brightly when everyone else's are dulled to tick religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality and handed high places of equality when there is no equality.

Now i'll ask you Dodo... who was Jesus and Mohammad?

1 March 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Morris

Jesus the Christ was and is the Godhead Incarnate - God made man, one in being with the Father the Spirit and yet fully man.

Muhammed was a false prophet. A man who followed neither Christianity nor Judaism or his own moral precepts. A deceiver of people, sexually immoral and a brutal warlord.

Tell me Morris, are you an escapee from the physical, spiritual and emotional repression of Islam?

1 March 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

Jesus the Christ was and is the Godhead Incarnate - God made man, one in being with the Father the Spirit and yet fully man.

Do you see your definition has no meaning? So what? Is what he taught useful? Because magic-Jesus certainly isn't here to hold your hand and make decisions about feeding millions of starving babies with two pretzels. Heaven only looks after itself... there are no records of any meteor being deflected from striking the earth.

Muhammed was a false prophet. A man who followed neither Christianity nor Judaism or his own moral precepts. A deceiver of people, sexually immoral and a brutal warlord.

Again so what? That was his life, of not facing his own demons, his book getting darker and darker and more abrogated as he separated from his conscience. A dissociation of affection led to his corruption of a child and grooming another. Ali Sina wrote a marvellous book "Understanding Mohammad," the psychology of such people.

But how are you going to live your life?

Do you think emulating good people's behaviour or appeasing known gangsters who promise they won't hurt you if you submit, makes you a better person?

You can't be a copy of, or pimp for, anyone. Seeking a peace where there is no peace because you have to keep on pretending.

To say a child is born with Original Sin and lay that guilt trip on them is despicable.

Tell me Morris, are you an escapee from the physical, spiritual and emotional repression of Islam?

No. Just someone who took some wrong turns in childhood, and like Jesus in realisation, was born again. Anyone can do it and let go of nonsense, which is why there are government funded helplines to prevent you doing it: 'If only you believed more, by faith you shall be saved'. Power to the priests who will take care of it for you.

It is by truth you shall be saved.

1 March 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Morris

Ali Sina says Muhammed had a narcissistic personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy and an obsessive compulsive disorder and that Islam is the result of one man's insanity.

That Muhammed was a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a madman and a looter.

I agree!

What Jesus offers is freedom from the delusions and illusions you vividly paint. It's not about emulating Him or fearing Him. And original sin is not about a guilt trip. It is about understanding man has to be freed from the very issues you outline so eloguently.

1 March 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

What Jesus offers is freedom from the delusions and illusions you vividly paint.

He invited you to take the path he took. The truth about yourself sets you free. (No one know the truth about someone else!).

He did not claim to hear voices or Angels but faced his 'demons' so they had no power over him. If you do likewise, (and there is no other way but to go it alone... or else remain a coward with all your fussiness and distractions), you cannot be used to futher anyones ambitions. They have no buttons to press. "I'll shoot you if you don't shoot your neighbour," does not have any effect anymore. No Jinns exist except in imaginations.

"And original sin is not about a guilt trip. It is about understanding man has to be freed from the very issues you outline..."

Adam and Eve is a Creation Myth. They all had messages, and this one is about the warning of identifying with the world. To puff up in pride with the knowledge of Good and Evil. A priest becomes a pervert just by thinking what they memorized made them clever. In-filled with dry words, they distract themselves with frustrated lust.

Leave the books alone. Children already have the kingdom of god. They unfold like a flower. Just protect them and push them back onto their conscience. They survived 4.2 billion years in the making and will go on to many more if not made to doubt and self-harm.

1 March 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Dodo, any idea where Kendrick Morris is coming from ?

1 March 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I do.

1 March 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Morris

Two sayings of Jesus I will leave you to reflect on:

"I am the way and the truth and the life."

"And when an unclean spirit has gone out of a man he walks through dry places seeking rest, and finds none.

Then he says: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he finds it empty, swept, and garnished.

Then he goes, and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first."

2 March 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General naturally inquired after a multitude of gibberish (well asked that fellow!)

I say Dodo, any idea where Kendrick Morris is coming from ?

To which Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I do.

To which Ermst replies;

Good Lord (Me Homie), Dat swiss roll must be laced with copious ammounts of ganja, coz I ain't got a clue wat dat blud Morris, iz gibber'n bout.

Word Up!

Ernst 'Sweet, Ja Rools' Blofeld

2 March 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, then you've led a sheltered life, dear chap. And one does not have to be stoned to have empathy and imagination. I've met the Morris' of this world before and they are entitled to be heard.

2 March 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

"I am the way and the truth and the life." No man comes to the Father any other way than he did. No praising him is going to help. You will never regain your own authority unless you forgive those in authority you submitted to. No sane person would ever make someone their inferior unless they already placed themselves as inferior to someone else.

"And when an unclean spirit has gone out of a man he walks through dry places seeking rest, and finds none.

Then he says: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he finds it empty, swept, and garnished.

Then he goes, and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first."


If you resist your temptations by fasting and prayer, all that will happen to you when you have finished, is those desires will come back seven fold. (St Paul's thorn).
If you do not resist, but calmly face the root of your vice, then by repentance you will be set free and no vacant place remain. Indulgence is caused because you got frustrated and did not want to admit it, attempting to fix it to make a wrong a justification, to reninvent yourself, to have pride.

If you get upset, then the distraction appears to make it go away, until you are more upset, and more distractions are needed, until you are fully outraged and the world must change.

Those that preside over couples to marry should help them discern if they are ready to take on the reponsibility of another person, when they cannot take on responsibilty for themselves. If you showed each couple their ways through counselling they would not utter "our egos have grown apart" but "we have grown together".

Inspector don't ask Dodo where I'm coming from, I am not of the world, and nor should you be. Find out for yourself. It will save your life because you will stand on a rock while everyone else is drowning. Call no person priest.

Thank you Dodo for your interest in the sanctury in which children should grow.

2 March 2012 at 01:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Morris

Tread gently brother, take your time and may the peace of God be with you.

2 March 2012 at 01:16  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

Don't worry E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles, the Roman Christians did not know what Jesus was on about either.

A Muslim is more honest and devout as a servant, for he easily copies Mohammed.

2 March 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger kendrick Morris said...

Dodo,

And also with you.

2 March 2012 at 01:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older